About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 59
LANGUAGE
English 59
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 59 (some duplicates have been removed)
savings and efficiencies, but also looking at the current situation with spending within the pentagon and making sure that our leaders there have the ability to make sure that they meet this nation's priority in making those spending decision. i appreciate the opportunity to coming -- to come before you. we look forward to taking your questions. >> can you clarify, does it completely remove defense? >> it would. sequestration has two primary components that we dislike. one is the severity of the cuts in national defense and the second is the arbitrary way in which it doesn't. what we are basically saying is we ought to at least agree on the national security defense and we do not want to do anything that would jeopardize that. this bill is in a simplistic form that everyone can expand -- can understand, that sequestration would not be good for national defense. adjusting the numbers anywhere they wanted to, but it would basically say that we are not going to use this kind of arbitrary approach when it comes to national defense. >> we tend to be hearing two messages from republicans. o
. we are reading about a $3 billion cut in the military health care system. the pentagon could be restructuring contracts. what do you want to say about those areas? guest: training is going to be cut. dod has said only unit preparing to deploy will be training. everybody else in the air force and navy, the planes will be grounded. they will take the money they would have used to do the training and shifted into the war account to pay for afghanistan. try care -- tricare is what you mentioned. people will still get benefits can be seen by doctors. host: a big fight in washington over the defense aspect. what else should we know about the defense area? guest: there will be an impact. there are two sides of sequestration. there is the side that we need to cut federal spending and defense needs to play a role. talking to people in the pentagon, a lot of them would agree with that. the problem is they are halfway through the year. they have not been preparing for this at all. they will have to squeeze all of these cuts into a six-month period. the next six months, it is implemented
to the pentagon and immediately i ordered the deployment of these forces. >> in between 9:42 p.m. benghazi time when the first attack started at 5:00 p.m. when they lost their lives, what conversations it either of you have was secretary clinton/ -- would secretary clinton? >> would not have any conversations with secretary clinton. >> is the same trooper you -- true for you? my time is expired. senator we ask you about securing the compound in 23 days to do so. -- and the 23 days to do so. we saw news crews seeing sensitive documents. you said that you were not requested to secure the compound. had you been requested to secure the compound, the u.s. military could have done so effectively. >> yes. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you can watch more on their testimony on the attack on the consulate's in benghazi. next, a feral ceremony for outgoing defense secretary leon panetta. president obama and the joint chiefs of staff paid tribute to him. the ceremony included members from all of the u.s. arm
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
panetta spoke at a pentagon farewell ceremony. he talked about north korea and called on congress to end the uncertainty posed by pending budget cuts known as sequestration. mr. panetta will stay in his position until his successor is confirmed. president obama has nominated former senator chuck hagel to be his replacement. this is half an hour. [applause] >> halt. present. halt. ♪ o say can you see by the dawn's early light snule what so -- what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say does that star spangled banner yet wave oaer the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ >> please be seated. >> ladies and gentlemen, the director of administration and management, mr. michael rhodes. >> well, welcome, everybody. thank you very much for being here today. as we have an opportunity for the secretary's farewell address to the pentagon c
remarks. the pentagon has moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those new experts. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious, quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agre
of the events of the events in benghazi. there were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defense's response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. during these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. i hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. since september, there's been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played -- play in many u.s. diplomatic missions abroad. the marine corps did not have an lament in again-- in benghazi. the committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. our fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the marine security guard program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. more immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of ma
are expected to come from the pentagon. a conversation about the government's use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. our guest is christopher anders. then we'll talk with judith for the national partnership. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well being of our citizens, i can report to you that the state of this youthful union is good. >> once again with keeping with time honored tradition i come to report to you on the state of the union. i'm pleased to report that america is much improved and there is good reason to believe that improve will continue. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union. not the state of your government but of your american community and set forth our responsibilities in the words of our founders to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers, yet the state of our union has never been stronger. >> it is becau
%, and defense is that 13%. i would like to give them the tools at the pentagon to manage through this and make sure that readiness does not suffer. host: we are talking with representative matt salmon, republican from arizona. larry, rutledge, georgia, you are on the air. independent line. caller: i think they should get bob woodward and a are -- ar-16. the marsupial press cannot seem to get the president back in their pouch. maybe we could cut the program for the cloning of joe biden because we do not need stupid and stereo. thank you, sir. host: that was larry in georgia. this is the white house's take on the sequester in arizona -- $18 million lost in primary and secondary education. guest: i think if the president spent even one-third more time leading, we would probably be able to do the job that needs to be done as far as targeting specific cuts like four point $5 billion on him proper food stamp payments, or an unused airport and -- in oklahoma, $340,000 for robust squirrels. i could go on and on about the ridiculous spending. if the president would work with us and talk to harry reid i
with a balanced approach to new revenue and necessary pentagon cuts and it creates jobs all over the country. it equalizes the cuts we've already made with revenue by closing tax loopholes for america's wealthiest individuals and corporations. but we shouldn't just sacrifice our economic recovery because republicans are unwilling to vote for one single penny and new revenue, new contributions from their billionaire friends and corporations. we have to look at what these cuts mean in the sequester. the sequester involves 70,000 children being kicked off of head start. no one in this chamber disagrees about the importance of head start. early childhood education is absolutely essential in creating the foundation for learning in children all over the world. and that's what head start is about. 70,000 american children being kicked off head start. that's what happens when you use a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel. we're talking about more than a million kids who will see their schools lose education funding. we're talking about emergency responders who will lose their jobs, meaning slower resp
cuts scheduled to take effect march 1. half the cuts are from the pentagon. we will discuss that with ray locker. and a conversation about the use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. then we will talk about the 22 anniversary of the family and medical leave act. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, former president bill clinton speaks to a gathering of house democrats. new secretary of state john kerry meets with the canadian foreign minister. then a military farewell for leon panetta. senator ben cardin talks to employees at the national institutes of health. >> first lady helen taft on discussing politics. >> i had always had the satisfaction of knowing almost as much he about the politics and intricacies of any situation. i think any woman can discuss with her husband topics of national interest. i became familiar with more than politics. >> helen taft, whose husband, william howard taft, was the only man to serve as president and supreme court justice. c-span is new original series, first ladies, image and influence. produced with t
, there is concern of layoffs. you mentioned darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative-- acc epted restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done. there will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in his weekly address, presi
federal government except the pentagon. all of a sudden the last couple of months hitting this arbitrary political target is vital. what is vital, as i said, is having a deficit strategy that's consistent with sound economic growth and making sure that we strengthen the middle class and that means as a first step to make sure that our deficits, as the economy improves, as we grow, that our deficits are not growing faster than g.d.p. and that we stabilize the debt as a percentage of g.d.p. because if you don't, as the economy improves, higher government borrowing -- we need to adopt that strategy and adopt it now. have it kicked in over a period of time. we just got very good news that the rate of per capita increase in health care costs is actually at the lowest level of 50 years. we need to continue to adopt strategies to keep that -- those costs increase low. as as demographic changes means baby boomers retire and we clearly need to keep working on those issues. but let me just sum up where we are in terms of our deficit reduction targets. over the last little over two years we have no
the drop program should fall under the pentagon, not the cia. you can listen to rebroadcast on c-span radio today. richards in result -- richard is on the line. what do you think about the drone's strikes? >> it is very vast modern-day technology. there will always be people killed a matter what we do. we have to grow up and understand that. the aclu is the biggest group of nuts on the planet. thank you. host: edmond, oklahoma. caller: i would just like to say one thing. the aclu is on the front of maintaining our constitutional rights. you may not agree with some of , but iflenges, i don't things they overall doing a good job. as far as the drones, they're working in that uncovered. in pakistan. i live in oklahoma and it has been in the paper recently that we have drone's being used here. one of your previous caller said there was a bill. from what i understand, we already have them here. we have a republican governor right now is in violation is not transparent, taking orders from right wing not jobs back east. and she now has these drones at her disposal. host: we heard earlier from form
to continue on the washington post article that came all recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep only 8000 troops in afghanistan. general austin, can you support a plan that was scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? we are looking at the withdrawal of troops in afghanistan. according to this article, from 8000 to about 1000 in a short period and of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends on troops on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are at that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i would really work hard to make sure i fully understood what to the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. my advice as a commander on the ground or a commander of central command -- i would provide my advice to them based upon where i think the security forces are , the conditions in the theater, and what i think we need to do to move full word to make sure we maintai
appropriate, too. the cia to the pentagon, he has demonstrated the highest caliber of integrity, wisdom, and patriotism. he has been a great partner and a great friend. what he said about humanity and being a human being in this role is worth repeating. it is easy to get caught up in the work and the intensity, the drive that is necessary to work those long days and short nights. it is sometimes too easy to forget why we do what we do, both military and civilian. for many of you, it has been a career choice, both my colleagues from the defense department and rom state, for others of us, it is something that we came to later and were involved in luckily and gave us a chance to serve. for all of us remembering why we do this work and how important it is to the future, especially future generations, is something leon panetta has never forgotten. i know that as leon heads back to california, he will, along with is absolutely wonderful wife, sylvia, continue to use the panetta institute to train the next generation of leaders. i also want to say a special word of thanks to general dempsey. i
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
return home, and i admit that when we first asked him to lead the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty, that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents and opening their homes up to gi's added to the pacific, perhaps leon served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense and every action beyond panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affi
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to thisarticle from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i ve questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would ovide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the gain
with the pentagon, first with bob gates and mike mullah, then with leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token, america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain invaluable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years and i would be quick to add, the u.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships, that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needle -- needle of a variable landscape, like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon, or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we're also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union and somalia and the arab league in libya, even subregiona
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
to the cia, to the pentagon, he has demonstrated the highest caliber of and secretintegrity and wisd. he is not only been a great partner but a great friend. i think you have to postpone for a while removing the 8 seconds delay for the sensors until he actually does leave the building. [laughter] but what he said the documentary, about being a human being in these roles, as brett repeating. it is easy to get so caught up with until the work and intensity, the drive necessary to work those long days and short night's. it is sometimes too easy to forget why we do what we do, both military and civilian. for many of you, it has been a career choice. both my colleagues from the defense department and from state. for others of us, it is something that became too later and were involved in luckily becky was a chance to serve. but for all of us, remembering why we do this work and how important it is to the future, especially future generations, is something leon panetta has never forgotten. i know that as leon does eventually head back to california, he will, along with this wonderful wife, con
secretary in a private ceremony with family members and immediate office staff at the pentagon. he later spoke to folks at the pentagon. we'll show that to you later in our program schedule. the supreme court today heard testimony in a case regarding the voting rights act of 1965. "the new york times" reporting on the oral argument today saying a central provision of that voting rights act could be in peril judging from rough or tough questioning today from the supreme court's more conservative members. they write that the law, a landmark achievement of the civil era, was challenged by shelby county, alabama, which said the requirement outlived its usefulness. we spoke about the oral argument today on "washington journal." host: the supreme court hears a case about the voting rights act today and here to talk about with us is ari berman, contributing righter at the nation. and hang von, at the heritage foundation, thank you to you. before we get into the specifics what the supreme court is hearing today,ary, tell us about the voting rights act and its history. >> it was put into place be
the pentagon thinks they do not want or need, whether it they happen to be built in their districts. there is always plenty of room. as i understand it, the idea of the sequestration and originated with the president and his budget director, mr. lew. that is how they came up with this concept. republicans should simply let the thing become a fact. it is the only opportunity we have to make the present make any cuts at all. he seems to be so opposed to spending cuts and is only interested in finding tax and revenue. in my personal opinion, what we need to do is step back and take a look at our military and our commitments. we have bases in europe that have no reason to be there, certainly not in the numbers we are. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. ray locker? guest: we have a lot of military commitments all over the world. do we need to maintain a base in germany, for example? we could lessen our footprint there. there is a base on the islands in the atlantic that are controlled by portugal. we could dial that all presence there. if things get bad enough and there
is astounding. the pentagon needs to be pared down. me the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. -- the pentagon needs to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. you agree with this general perception that senator hagel -- chuck hagel made. that would be great. >> that is a good question. it is a fair question. i cannot speak for senator hagel. my interpretation is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say. we had accumulated over the decade post 9/11 when our budget was going up every year. when your budget goes year and year out, it is fair to say we have a management problem, all of our managers, it was easy to reach for more money to solve your managing problem, whether it is a technical problem in a program or something like that. it was noticeable to me that the logistics in some places that have accumulated over the decades. that is my secretary gates started his efficiency initiative, which i was part of. our efforts to reform the system improved our performance. in parallel, we have absorbed billions
, but the sequester is set to happen next friday, march 1. the pentagon is addressing that next friday and there will be a news conference coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern to talk about pentagon plans on c-span 2 at 1:00. gail is on the democrat line. what did you think of the secretary's speech? >> i thought that his speech was excellent. i am really grateful for the secretary and what he is doing. we live in an interdependent world and it is important that we give foreign policy rights. that also includes getting the budget right. that is the message around the world. if we want to be successful, we need to do this at home, we need to make sure that we are sending the message of who americans are out of the world. thank you so much, senator -- secretary carry, for what you're doing. >> john, independent line. >> i would like -- i like to the secretary's speech. it had ambition and scope. i wish him great success in the job. i do feel that he has to overcome a legacy of failure from hillary clinton in her years as secretary of state. >> what is the specific failure he has to overcome? c
kill tv, jay johnson, a pentagon stop lawyer admitted, quote, if i were catholic i'd have to go to confession, unquote. mr. petraeus' departure presents mr. obama with an opportunity to halt the c.i.a.'s drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. for all the technological advances america's made in the decade of fighting al qaeda, it still needs all the old tricks it learned in the day before spy satellites and droughns drones. more and better human intelligence in sources on the ground will result in more accurate targeting. that would be a yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and more effective counterterrorism legacy for mr. obama's second term. gregory johnson from "the new york times." another good article by patrick pool on june 6 of 2012. obama's assassination czar, a relatively unnoticed article, this is from the article, quoting, by associated press reporter kimberly dozer two weeks ago outlining new obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political ap
the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents opening their homes up to g.i.'s headed to the pacific. perhaps it was leon, who served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense, in every action leon panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred obligation to our troops to t
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
and hope the senate will act quickly to confirm him and put him in place in the pentagon. >> in terms of the way he answered various questions, i know you took issue with the tough question style of republican senators. is the white house pleased with how senator hagel answered questions? >> i believe he did a fine job. if you look, if you take all the news clips, not the whole performance, but the news clips that have dominated television report and on this, they have focused on a series of exchanges that i think, by any estimation, largely represent the injuring over issues like, why did you disagree with me over iraq? we are prepared to say that senator obama had a view on iraq. it was one of the reasons he ran on that position and one in 2008 against senator mccain. he vowed to end the war in iraq in a with a protected our national security interests. now, he is focused on winding down the war in afghanistan. someone bizarrely, and given that we have 56,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan, senators yesterday, in a hearing for the nomination of the secretary of defense asked ve
is served until 2009, and works in the pentagon. our first call, on the republican line. caller: my daughter serves in the marine corps. i'm very proud of my daughter. if we take and put our people out of afghanistan, what is going to prevent these people from going back over -- coming back over to our country, and a glowing us up again? we may have gotten rid of osama bin laden. what about everybody else? we have to protect our people, whether it is in afghanistan, africa, or wherever. we cannot allow our people totally out of this country just because president obama says, they are muslims, they are my fellow men, my fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with
drastic. why wait until today to make these announcements? do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. that was october 2011. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could.
. >> we are under 10 days now. the pentagon briefed yesterday saying the furloughs among civilian employees would not take place until late april. >> i think the process begins, an administrative process for you and not something that will begin and notices began to go out but i would refer you to the pentagon for details. >> you have to cut into other things. >> each agency is dealing with the serious implications of the sequester to their budgets. the defense is one of those agencies that will be hit very hard but i refer you to the agencies themselves about how they are managing the process. >> the president got good news because rick scott said he now wants to expand medicaid. he is one of several -- several republican governors who have looked flopped on that. how does the white house review that? >> we are focused on implementation of the portable care act. we think the decisions made by governors across the country to move forward with implementation recognize that the benefits here for providing affordable health care to citizens of their state are very worthwhile. and we
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
of the pentagon. it was clearly unsettled. it looked much worse than we had thought. the first hope was that if we got saddam hussein, that would solve the problem. we made an effort to do that. in december, we picked up saddam. it became obvious that, as one of my guys described, a bunch of former regime guys were not really running the beginning of the resistance, the beginning of the insurgency. zarqawi had started to build a network that took trained people, or iraqi sunnis -- trained people, iraqi sunnis, who had been dislocated from their position in society, sometimes government, sometimes military might and they were terrified of the shia, which was going to be dominant in the future. you had this combination of factors that was fear of the future, frustration against foreign invaders, and then -- not as much religious extremism as sometimes is perceived. it was not really an al qaeda religious movement. it was a political movement, but he got leveraged by some very clever work by people like abu musab al-zarqawi. we were very sure he was there at the beginning of early 2004. we started to
there is a lot of innovation that started on the defense side. as you see, the restraint on the pentagon plus those that will come into play, do you think that has negative impacts on the competitive manufacturing. >> i do not know enough about it. we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of a catalyst is something that you see in every corner of the world. i do not go to one place where there is no government at all. there is a little bit of a role. the private sector is very strong and innovative and we should be happy about the unfair premier real spirit. the private sector can pick up a lot depending on how the government is restructured. there will be such a value in getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust and get forward. the sigh of relief and -- i think is so important right now. >> just so it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. i want everybody to know we can compete. there are markets to be had. the workforce when directed and trained is as good as any in the world. please know that. >> thank you very optimistic no
with pentagon cuts. host: we have been asking people, as you know, what is the most important question on your mind for washington right now. what is your message to washington? what is most important? caller: from listening for a few minutes, the gentleman from gallup is totally off. i do not know where they get their information. the general public, i think, is very interested in gun control. i am for the second amendment. i think people can get around controls. also, infrastructure in the united states is very important for the average person. if we are going to give money to other countries, about giving us half of what we are going to give them? instead of $100 million to some country for some sewage system, how about $50 million? how about cutting everybody's money we are going to give them in half, and put the money into this country? host: thank you. next is a call from new mexico. what is your most important issue? caller: a lot of these issues are important and have been looming in washington for some time. one of the most pressing issues, obviously, is the gun control debate. i just
to "usa today," which in the cover story lay out some specific areas. the pentagon said a majority of civilian employees will be furloughed. they talked about agricultural department, with meat and poultry inspectors facing furloughs. this information goes on and on , no matter where you read today. june is calling from wisconsin. independent. caller: hi. i just want everybody to remember that we sent the people to washington who are our "representatives" to represent us, not their own egos. they should be furloughed. everybody in congress who is against doing things to make this country grow, they should not get paid. they should be laid off and not get a pay raise for years. they are always big on cutting public workers. listen, it has always been about good government jobs. government workers spend the money, and other businesses hire more people. the republicans know that, and it is just a shame that we are at war and the things we are doing in congress are, like, treasonous to me, because it is bringing down our country. my senator, ron johnson, he needs to fully explain why h
of those confirmed by the pentagon, making him the mosley that will sniper in american history. one thing about that is that chris was very unassuming and i remember knowing a little bit about his background but then meeting chris for the first time and how humble he was and how down to earth he was. he didn't really talk about records, he talked about people. he talked about what his job was, was to protect his fellow soldiers. his ability in the battlefield was unmatched. his longest shot came in 2008 when he identified an enemy insurgent that was about to launch a rocket near an army convoy. from 1.2 miles away, he fired his .338 magnum rifle and killed the insurgent, potentially saving the lives of countless americans. chris was rewarded -- awarded countless honors for his various he earned two silver starks five bronze stars, two navy and marine corps achievement medals and one navy and marine corps commendation. he was admires by people really all over the country. on this monday, about 7,000 or 8,000 people gathered in the dallas cowboys stadium in dallas, texas, to come and pay th
that everyone in this body agrees with my ideas about reshaping pentagon spending or reforming entitlements to ensure they provide benefits for generations to come, but i do know that making the changes that are best for the long-term interests of this country can't be accomplished overnight. this decision requires our best efforts and planning. as the threat of sequester has painfully revealed a chainsaw is no way to create a budget for the most powerful country on earth. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, for five minutes. mr. pocan: i am differentlyly and humbled -- and deeply humbled to represent wisconsin's second district. they are hardworking dairy farmers and cheese makers that can produce the best milk and cheese you can find. i ran for congress because i wanted to ensure these voices, the voices of south central wisconsin, are heard, respected and represented in washington. and i am committed to serving their needs by working with my colleagues, all of my colleagues, regardless
was the police chief in arlington, virginia. that is where the pentagon was. what i learned that day is if this country >> now i wondered in the last decade how many people have to get murdered in a mass murder for it to be enough? i've been wrong time after time after time. i'm a grand pap i have little kids at home. are 20 babies be enough. that's what we're asking for? when was that gun bought? [applause] >> i'm a law enforcement guy too. i had your job in connecticut some years ago. i want to say, nobody in law enforcement ever thinks we're doing enough. nobody ever says we can go home and stop trying to to do better. so as much as we may agree with you that the united states department of justice and local and state police forces are trying to enforce these laws as agress ily as possible. i think you need more resources and you need criminal background checks. so you can know how to keep these weapons, all weapons out of the hands who shouldn't have them, criminals, domestic abusers, the severe mentally ill. would you agree that the criminal background check expansion into priva
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
, a cut in naval forces. at $3 billion cut in the military's health care system. the pentagon could be restructuring contracts. what do you want to say about those areas? guest: training is of cuts where only units preparing to deploy or other places -- these are the ones that will be training. everyone else, primarily in the air force and the navy, their planes will be grounded because it will not have the money they would use to do the training. it will be shifted into the war accounts to pay for afghanistan. stuff like tricare, i believe you mentioned, that is more like the benefits for care and being seen by doctors and whatnot. >> there are lots of voices in washington. what should we know about the defensive area? guest: there are two sides. there is the side that says we need to cut federal spending and the defense needs to take a roll. a lot of them would agree with that. the problem is, we're halfway done with the year and they have not been preparing for this. they will up to squeeze this into a six-month period. if it is fully implemented, it will have an impact. 2014, if
a bit, cuts have to be part of it. the pentagon has to make a contribution to the effort. we put everything on the table we can get from where we are to where we need to be. that is common sense. that is where the tectonic forces are tugging in opposite directions. we did have a group of tenants -- 10 of lasus who are making n effort to do similar to what the gang of six was trying to do. what i think we can do is work at a lower level whereby passing legislation, it might be the redistricting commission that you talked about. or maybe energy efficiency. to find some issue where it will be news that there is 20 verizon 20 republicans who are working together. m. e. they were sure bet each other's consent conference and advocates together for taking a step forward. it is by example and getting some small successes that we can change the way congress and functioning. -- congress is functioning. >> there was a group, i was part of. at the height of it there was 140 members, bipartisan, bicameral. we met several times and we were making a headway, putting a lot of ideas on the table
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
for the director of intelligence or the defense intelligence agency? and that is part of the pentagon? caller: the defense intelligence agency, we are under the dod. host: what are you hearing about your job? caller: because i am a civilian, i'm liable to be placed on furlough at least one day a week, potentially 22 days until the end of the fiscal year. unfortunately, paying my half of the rent with a roommate at $1,200 a month prior to facilities, i'm going to have many difficulties with living with another analyst, just trying to afford our rent, as well as part of any food or any other expenses. host: could you have taken a job in the private sector and made more? caller: absolutely. i got a college degree try to join the intelligence agency, because i intended to serve this country. i do not wear a uniform, but i go to work every day for the defense of this nation. host: steve, from maryland, part of the energy department. caller: i am a fairly senior person. i understand the plight of folks at lower levels. the point is i have been working for the federal government for about 32 years.
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 59 (some duplicates have been removed)